I don't know if Mike did, but his brother has admitted on this board that he played in at least one of the Second Mile tournaments after Mike purportedly saw Sandusky raping a child in 2001. That seems very odd.
Just The Facts About Joe Paterno
- Thread starter bplionfan
- Start date
I don't know if Mike did, but his brother has admitted on this board that he played in at least one of the Second Mile tournaments after Mike purportedly saw Sandusky raping a child in 2001. That seems very odd.
But "a ton of people" aren't claiming that they witnessed Sandusky raping a child. Playing in a tournament after that would be inexplicable.
If he wasn't ok with seeing Sandusky still galavanting around Penn State after he saw whatever the h### he saw he damn well should have done something about it.
Like what....inform his chain of command? You have a real hard on for him. Go get him Tiger, Jerry is the real POS in all of this.
It wasn't that Mike and Jerry played a round of golf together. No one is saying that. It was that Mike played in the Jerry Sandusky sponsored 2nd Mile Golf event after the 2001 incident. Regardless of whether one is playing directly with Jerry or not, I don't know who in their right mind would play in any event sponsored by someone who they believed was a pedophile.
Like what?
Called ChildLine
Talked to Joe to express his concern that his report wasn't taken seriously
Called Penn State police
Called State College police
Called Centre Co CYS
Called the Centre Co DA
Any normal person who was actually sure that he had witnessed an adult raping a child would have done these things. But Mike didn't. He kept his mouth shut for 10 years. Worse, his family continued to support the rapist's "victim factory."
So, yeah, I have a hard on for Mike. He set off the bomb that blew up Penn State when he lied about what he told people in 2001.
Grrrrrrr, you go get him. You're as good as the media with regards to Joe.
Last edited:
If MM had seen Paterno's grandchild being inappropriately touched by Sandusky and reported it to him, do you think he would have just reported it to Curley?
And when the administration did next to nothing, do you think he would have let it go and said oh well?
If MM had seen Sandusky raping (at least be consistent with the story MM is telling) a Paterno grandchild, would he have just waltzed out of the building and left the kid there?
I believe that the testimony has shown that Mike never played in a 2nd Mile Tournament after the incident. Yet I see time and time again that people post (or speak) of it as a fact that he played.
Deflect. Deflect.
You asked what Mike could've done.
I answered.
Why do YOU think Mike didn't do any of those things? Do you honestly believe that he told people in 2001 that he'd seen Sandusky raping a kid?
So he could have done more, but nobody else could have? So you agree with the media and character assassination on Joe...or you're a pretty big hypocrite. The same thing the media crucified Joe for which was wrong IMO, but it's ok with you to do it to Mike. I'm not hung up on MM and what his exact words were. He did tell some people something occurred,...but we don't know what was said exactly. Good for you...you go get him. Take him down...be some hero or something.
In fairness, if the tournament was on a really nice track and I could play at a reasonable price, I'd probably play. What can I say?: I like golf.
Too many people are focusing on what Paterno did, McQueary did, Spanier did, etc. etc. If Sandusky is guilty, and I say IF...the person who is to blame here is Sandusky. Not anyone else.
Last edited:
If had seen any child being appropriately touched by Sandusky, and reported it to JVP, maybe he would have done more. But since that didn't actually happen, we will never know.
The administration haven't had their day in court, so we aren't exactly sure what they did or did not do.
Actually there is no testimony where Mike denies playing in a 2nd mile golf event after the incident. I can assure that if there is ever a trial for C/S/S there will be people testifying that they played in those outings and played in front of Mikes group and saw Mike there after the 2001 incident.
9:39 a.m. Wednesday -- The defense called Henry Lesch, an official with the Second Mile golf program.
Lesch testified that McQueary received a letter from The Second Mile for playing in their golf outing in June of 2003.
Earlier in the trial, McQueary testified that he tried not to be involved in anything that Sandusky was involved in specifically because of what he testified he saw.
The defense presented a letter written to McQueary from The Second Mile program thanking him for participating in their outing. Lesch confirmed that the letter is from the Second Mile Program and was sent out to participants only. However, Lesch said he does not specifically recall McQueary playing in the outing.
The defense also presented a picture of McQueary that could have been taken during another golf outing in 2001, but Lesch could not say for certain where the photo was from.
So he could have done more, but nobody else could have? So you agree with the media and character assassination on Joe...or you're a pretty big hypocrite. The same thing the media crucified Joe for which was wrong IMO, but it's ok with you to do it to Mike. I'm not hung up on MM and what his exact words were. He did tell some people something occurred,...but we don't know what was said exactly. Good for you...you go get him. Take him down...be some hero or something.
I agree with you most of the time but not here. McQueary was the actual witness, so I am hung up on what he exactly said in 2001 and what he said a decade later. It's actually the key to the whole thing regarding PSU's involvement. Everybody who McQueary talked to (including his own father) about this in 2001 seemed to react the same...that is was worth checking into but overall not that big of a deal. Horseplay came up a lot. I don't believe those people would have reacted the same way if he had said in 2001 what he was saying under oath a decade later.
So yeah I think it's fine to be harder on him than Paterno and everyone else involved. That is not hypocritical at all. He was the only witness, and his actions and inactions put a bunch of good people into a tough spot and turned this into a FUBAR. I do feel sorry for him and yeah it would have been nice if Sandusky had never put him in this situation, but nobody needs to take him down. He did it to himself.
People can feel what they need to. I'm just over the MM witch hunt. Wish he did more, he didn't. I simple stated he was at a golf event and someone else flipped out. No big deal to me.
So he could have done more, but nobody else could have? So you agree with the media and character assassination on Joe...or you're a pretty big hypocrite. The same thing the media crucified Joe for which was wrong IMO, but it's ok with you to do it to Mike. I'm not hung up on MM and what his exact words were. He did tell some people something occurred,...but we don't know what was said exactly. Good for you...you go get him. Take him down...be some hero or something.
Deflect. Deflect. Anything to avoid answering the question.
Why didn't Mike do more when he saw that Sandusky was still a free man?
The answer is quite obvious to anyone with firing synapses. Mike didn't more - that night in 2001 or later - because he wasn't sure about what he'd seen.
His testimony about what he told Curley & Schultz was not truthful, and it has cost Penn State hundreds of millions of dollars.
So, yeah, I'm pretty pissed off at him.
So he could have done more, but nobody else could have? So you agree with the media and character assassination on Joe...or you're a pretty big hypocrite. The same thing the media crucified Joe for which was wrong IMO, but it's ok with you to do it to Mike. I'm not hung up on MM and what his exact words were. He did tell some people something occurred,...but we don't know what was said exactly. Good for you...you go get him. Take him down...be some hero or something.
There's a BIG difference between MM and Joe here though, MM was the one and ONLY "witness". Everyone was taking their cues off of him and what he said. Joe was simply an intermediary who did was he was supposed to do then got out of the way. MM's 2010 version of events simply defies credulity.
If MM would have told the OAG in 2010 what he told everyone in 2001, that he was weirded out by the sounds, etc but couldn't say for sure what they were doing because he couldn't really see anything, then a lot of this mess could have been avoided. Instead he decided to play revisionist history and tell the OAG in 2010 that he was pretty sure a kid was getting abused and reported it as such to Joe/admins. In the 12/16/11 prelim when the admin's lawyers try to pin MM down on these claims they get him to admit he wasn't 100% what they were doing (which contradicts his written statement that he was "certain" sodomy was occurring) b/c he couldn't see anyone's hands or privates and they also get him to admit he never said MORE needed to be done when TC called him to follow up with what they decided to do about his report.
So, if the one and only witness and his dad are giving the impression the witness is satisfied, why would the admins/Joe think otherwise.
Look, either MM was ok with their plan or he wasn't. If he wasn't, he certainly never told that to ANYONE at PSU. That is a key fact that most folks aren't aware of. The one and only witness never expressed dissatisfaction to ANYONE at PSU after he made his report to the admins.
When someone you tasked with looking into a matter follows up with you and you never express dissatisfaction or say MORE needs to be done, then by default you are ok with their plan. It's not that complicated. You're arguing that the admins should have ASSUMED MM was not ok even though he gave them no verbal indicators to that effect whatsoever...which is an asinine position.
Q. Now, did you play in any of The Second
Mile golf tournaments after this incident?
A. Did I play in any Second Mile golf
tournaments? I made a strong attempt to not be
associated with anything that Jerry was
involved in. I know for sure I haven't played
in the Second Mile golf tournament in several
years. Whether I played in it in 2000 or 2001,
I am not sure, but I can tell you that I do
know for sure that I haven't played in it in
several years because of what I saw.
Q. Okay. Well, you played in 2004 in a
Second Mile golf tournament, didn't you?
A. I'd like to see proof of that, sir.
http://www.yardbird.com/pdfs/Sandusky_Trial_Day_2_6.12.12.pdf
Obviously I can't confirm the validity of Mike's testimony, however he certainly did deny playing in it.
So he could have done more, but nobody else could have? So you agree with the media and character assassination on Joe...or you're a pretty big hypocrite. The same thing the media crucified Joe for which was wrong IMO, but it's ok with you to do it to Mike. I'm not hung up on MM and what his exact words were. He did tell some people something occurred,...but we don't know what was said exactly. Good for you...you go get him. Take him down...be some hero or something.
You're right, it's the same criticism of Joe. Just leveled at a different person. And we still don't know everything that transpired from when Mike saw what he saw and the following days.
Not sure how you get that from what you posted. He does nothing but dance. Saying he "attempted" to not be associated for "several" years.
Ironically he answered the question just like JS would... by repeating the question and dancing around the answer. If you truly did not play in a golf tournament with JS, you answer that question "NO".
Apparently MM made a strong attempt at not being associated with anything JS was involved in, but NEVER made an attempt at filing a formal police report with UPPD or anonymous call to childline...even though he was "pretty sure, relatively sure" sodomy was occurring..this is why his testimony is such a joke, none of it lines up.
Thanks for confirming what I said. Show me in that testimony where he denies playing in the events. Look at his answers carefully. He tries answering in a round about way.
I made a strong attempt...(What does that mean? He doesn't deny)
I haven't played...in several years.... (The trial was 2012, that's 11 years after 2001. That is more than several years. He doesn't deny)
Whether I played in it in 2000 or 2001, I am not sure... (2001 was the year of incident he may have played in 2001. He doesn't deny)
Well, you played in 2004... I'd like to see proof (He didn't deny)
Hey some could be absolutely right here and Mike screwed it all up. I really don't care about speculation though...that is most of the anger driven stuff you see. I just find it odd those that blast the media for the Joe witch hunt don't see a bit of hypocrisy with their takes on MM...with nothing more than 10 year old memories and 3 men who have yet to take the stand. Sorry, I'm out of kerosene...it's football season.
It's so sad about what Mike has gone through since the SHTF with Sandusky. Yeah, he has made some huge mistakes (sending candid selfies to female students, gambling, etc...) but the biggest reason he's become such a pariah in the PSU community is he's never publicly admitted that he was manipulated so blatantly by the OAG. (Actually, manipulated may be the wrong term; some suggest blackmail may be closer to the truth!)
Question from an outsider, so I will understand if you dismiss.
Have this board's administrators ever considered creating a separate dedicated board for everything related to Sandusky, the sanctions, BOT power struggles, the statue removal etc etc. I.E., everything in any way connected to the Sandusky mess?
I think for the good of your football program, you should consider some compartmentalization. I understand that people are interested in following this and commenting on this on a daily basis, and there should always be a place for them to do just that. But IMO, mixing it in along with talk of THIS year's team, this year's players, this year's recruiting class is not in any way helping the program rebound.
As for my motive, it would be good for the Big Ten to see Penn State return to being a top ten program. Probably a must if we are ever going to close the gap with the SEC. Anyway, my $.02.
Go Blue
Have this board's administrators ever considered creating a separate dedicated board for everything related to Sandusky, the sanctions, BOT power struggles, the statue removal etc etc. I.E., everything in any way connected to the Sandusky mess?
I think for the good of your football program, you should consider some compartmentalization. I understand that people are interested in following this and commenting on this on a daily basis, and there should always be a place for them to do just that. But IMO, mixing it in along with talk of THIS year's team, this year's players, this year's recruiting class is not in any way helping the program rebound.
As for my motive, it would be good for the Big Ten to see Penn State return to being a top ten program. Probably a must if we are ever going to close the gap with the SEC. Anyway, my $.02.
Go Blue
Exactly. I do find it strange that mike saw nothing or saw something and said something and it turned out to be a big thing?
What are the odds?
But you're right, it's football season.
We tried, but this site in particular over any other PSU site has a few dedicated to this around the clock. Try other service sites if you want to discuss the actual game FWIW.
I am not sure how discussing this on a message board is hindering the program from rebounding? Its very simple in message board land. You don't want to view a thread you don't open it. This thread allows for outsiders who are coming to a PSU football message board to be educated. You likely wouldn't have seen the facts on Joe Paterno if it was moved.
Yes, and decided against it
I disagree that our discussing it affects the ability of the football program to rebound from the BS Consent Decree scholarship reductions the program faced for a few years.
The conference is helped whenever it's teams are strong, and whenever its traditional stronger teams are playing at that historical level. We'll be there soon enough. We're still working through depth issues at some positions that were caused by the BS Consent Decree scholarship reductions.
Do you see my point though? It is unlikely that this topic will EVER be "over". IMO it is not something players who are interested in perhaps coming to Penn State want to have to wade through.
This has always bothered me.
This is why it doesn't matter whether Joe was told by McQueary or not. It doesn't matter whether Joe was still coaching.
IT WAS NEVER ABOUT JOE.
It was always about nailing DR. SPANIER.
Let's assume Ganter is coach (I don't follow sports, so I have no idea who would have taken Joe's spot) Pick anybody.
The fact that Dranov was never charged, nor was Raykovitz, nor was Joe - it was ALWAYS ABOUT NAILING SPANIER via CURLEY & SCHULTZ. Didn't matter who was coaching. The plan was always the same.
Penn State's goose was being cooked all along down in Harrisburg and there wasn't a damned thing they could do about it. No one would have seen this coming - who expects your Governor and his pornslinging henchmen to take out your University president?
Now, had the OAG charged Dranov and charged Raykovitz- perhaps this farce would be more believable. Why didn't Fina charge them?
It was never about "the children" - it was always about a trophy kill. Corbett & Fina just didn't figure on the sports media. And I wish to hell the media would understand this - our state officials torching us here in the commonwealth - and it's cost us all how much? HALF A BILLION. That's Billion with a "B". Think of how many disadvantaged kids that could have helped.
I simply don't understand why the bloodhounds in our media won't track down Corbett and Fina in whatever covert they've holed themselves up in and drag them out on these issues.
No it's not the same. Mike is the one who claims that he witnessed a rape (not Paterno).
Similar threads
